🧹 [code health] Remove unused function cloneEvents

[matdev83]

🎯 What: Removed unused function cloneEvents from reconstructor.go.
💡 Why: It's an unexported function that is not referenced anywhere in the source file or package, removing it improves code health and maintainability.
✅ Verification: Verified by running go build ./... and go test ./....
✨ Result: Dead code is removed without changing functionality.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 16138277176135864895 started by @matdev83

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@matdev83, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 58 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 6a3d9c5c-f713-4d16-955a-8a2555a6ac7c

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 96d7ab5 and 15627db.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• internal/core/tokenaccounting/streamusage/reconstructor.go

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[matdev83]

Closing as a duplicate of #92, which removed the same unused \cloneEvents\ helper in \internal/core/tokenaccounting/streamusage/reconstructor.go\ and has been merged. This PR's diff against current \main\ is empty (the function is already gone), so merging would only add a no-op merge commit. Bugbot review of the change itself found no bugs.

[google-labs-jules]

Closing as a duplicate of #92, which removed the same unused \cloneEvents\ helper in \internal/core/tokenaccounting/streamusage/reconstructor.go\ and has been merged. This PR's diff against current \main\ is empty (the function is already gone), so merging would only add a no-op merge commit. Bugbot review of the change itself found no bugs.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is now obsolete and stopping work on this task.